IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SAC COUNTY

STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DARREN MITCHELL MEADE
DOB: 01-03-1967,
Defendant.


TRIAL INFORMATION


COUNT 1
COMES NOW Benjamin John Smith, as Prosecuting Attorney of Sac County, Iowa, and in
the name and by the authority of the State of Iowa, accuses Defendant, DARREN
MITCHELL MEADE (Defendant) of the crime of ONGOING CRIMINAL CONDUCT a
class B felony in violation of Iowa Code 706A.2(4), committed as follows: From on or
about September 11, 2012, through as recently as June 24, 2014, Defendant has
committed SPECIFIED UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY as defined in section 706A.1, in that
Defendant committed the below-listed predicate offenses and the other counts listed in this
Trial Information, and other acts described in the Minutes of Testimony, including
preparatory or completed offenses, for financial gain on a continuing basis, that are
punishable as an indictable offense under the laws of the state in which the crimes occurred
and under the laws of this state. IOWA CODE 706A.1 (2014) A person convicted of a class
B felony shall be confined for no more than twenty-five years. IOWA CODE 706A.2(4),
902.9 (2014)
A. PREVENTING OR DISSUADING PERSON FROM TESTIFYING OR
REPORTING CRIME Beginning on or around July 1, 2010, through February
2011, in the State of California, Defendant, on multiple occasions, attempted to
prevent or dissuade Dr. Scott Connelly, a person who had been the victim of a
crime or who was a witness to a crime, from causing a complaint, indictment,
information, probation or parole violation to be sought and prosecuted, and
assisting in the prosecution thereof, by publishing on the harassing, defamatory
stories about Dr. Scott Connelly on the internet. Also, in this same timeframe,
DARREN MEADE knowingly and maliciously attempted to prevent or dissuade
Dr. Scott Connelly, a witness and / or a victim from attending or giving testimony
E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

at any trial, proceeding, or inquiry authorized by law, by publishing harassing,
defamatory stories about Dr. Scott Connelly on the internet. Said crime is
punishable as an indictable offense under the laws of California [P.C.
136.1(b)(2), 136.1(a)(2)] and under the laws of the State of Iowa. [IOWA CODE
720.4 (2014)] DARREN MEADE committed this offense for financial gain.
B. EMBEZZLEMENT - From July 2010 through June 2010, in State of California,
Defendant fraudulently appropriated to any use or purpose not in the due and
lawful execution of Defendants trust, $500,000 from Progenex Inc., which was
under his control by virtue of that trust, or secreted the same with a fraudulent
intent to appropriate it to that use or purpose. Said crime is punishable as an
indictable offense under the laws of California [P.C. 503, 504] and under the
laws of the State of Iowa. [Iowa Code 714.1 (2014). DARREN MEADE
committed this offense for financial gain.
C. UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS AND
COMPUTER DATA On or around February 15, 2011, in the State of California,
Defendant knowingly accessed (without permission) altered, damaged, deleted,
destroyed, or otherwise used data [contained on the servers for the website
www.ripoffreport.com, which is a computer, a computer system, or computer
network in order to either devise or execute his scheme to remove RipOff Report
complaints about himself, as well as others for money, or artifice to defraud,
deceive, deceive or extort, or wrongfully control or obtain money, property, or
data. Said crime is punishable as an indictable offense under the laws of
California [P.C. 502.1(c)(1)] and under the laws of the State of Iowa [IOWA CODE
716A.4 (2014)]. DARREN MEADE committed this offense for financial gain.
D. EXTORTION On or around May 2, 2014, in the State of California, Defendant,
in effort to obtain money, threatened to unlawfully injure Xcentric Ventures LLC
(dba www.ripoffreport.com) and threatened to disclose information about
Xcentric Ventures, which he obtained while working for Xcentric Ventures, that
would place their entire company and protections under the [Communications
and Decency Act] at risk. Said crime is punishable as an indictable offense
under the laws of California [P.C. 518, 519] and under the laws of the State of
Iowa [IOWA CODE 711.4 (2014)] DARREN MEADE committed this offense for
financial gain.
E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

E. EXTORTION On or around September 12, 2013, in the State of California,
DARREN MEADE threatened to unlawfully expose Daniel Danino to hatred
contempt, and ridicule, when he threatened to keep his RipOff Report complaints
about Daniel Danino and Daniel Daninos business, OC PC Computers, on
RipOff Reports website unless Daniel Danino gave DARREN MEADEs
computer, which Daniel Danino had performed work on, back to DARREN
MEADE. Said crime is punishable as an indictable offense under the laws of
California [P.C. 518, 519] and under the laws of the State of Iowa [IOWA CODE
711.4 (2014)] DARREN MEADE committed this offense for financial gain.
F. ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT Beginning on or around July 1, 2010,
through around February 25, 2011, in the State of California, after felonies had
been committed by a number of individuals employed, or purporting to be
employed, by Progenex Inc., DARREN MEADE harbored, concealed, or aided
said individuals, all principals to one felony or another, with the intent that said
individuals avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having
knowledge that said individuals had committed such felonies or had been
charged with such felonies, or convicted thereof. Said crime is punishable as an
indictable offense under the laws of California [CAL. P.C. 32] and under the
laws of the State of Iowa [IOWA CODE 703.3] DARREN MEADE committed this
offense for financial gain.
G. ACCEPTING A BRIBE On or around August 15, 2014, DARREN MEADE,
who was or was about to be a witness in Small Justice LLC, v. Xcentric
Ventures, received, or offered to receive, a bribe, upon any understanding that
DARREN MEADEs testimony would be influenced thereby, or that DARREN
MEADE would absent himself from the trial or proceeding upon which his
testimony is required. Said crime is punishable as an indictable offense under
the laws of California [CAL. P.C. 138] and under the laws of the State of Iowa
[IOWA CODE 722.2] DARREN MEADE committed this offense for financial gain.

COUNT 2
COMES NOW Benjamin John Smith, as Prosecuting Attorney of Sac County, Iowa,
and in the name and by the authority of the State of Iowa, accuses Defendant, DARREN
MITCHELL MEADE (Defendant) of the crime of WITNESS TAMPERING, an aggravated
E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code sections 720.4, 708.7, and 703.1, committed as
follows: Beginning on or around September 11, 2012, through July 2014, Defendant, with
the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Raymond Friedman, a
States witness in State v. Richter, Sac County District Court, Case No. FECR011900.
Specifically, with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness Raymond Friedman,
without any legitimate reason, and in retaliation for witness Raymond Friedmans testimony
and lawful participation in the above case, DARREN MEADE published numerous
defamatory, harassing online complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning Raymond
Friedman. Said complaints accuse witness Raymond Friedman of committing perjury,
fraud, and other criminal acts, and associate him with child molestation, child pornography,
and pipe bombs. One of these complaints has appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8
million webpages almost every day for the last two years. DARREN MEADE specially
engineered and optimized these complaints to enhance their online visibility and presence,
such that the complaints appear in benign, Google-type searches of and for Raymond
Friedman, his wife, Marie Friedman, and his business. Defendants acts produced
detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an indictable offense. Defendant
committed this act for financial gain.
COUNT 3
COMES NOW Benjamin John Smith, as Prosecuting Attorney of Sac County, Iowa,
and in the name and by the authority of the State of Iowa, accuses Defendant, DARREN
MITCHELL MEADE (Defendant) of the crime of WITNESS TAMPERING, an aggravated
misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code sections 720.4, 708.7, and 703.1, committed as
follows: Beginning on or around September 11, 2012, through July 2014, Defendant, with
the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Marie Friedman, a States
witness in State v. Richter, Sac County District Court, Case No. FECR011900. Specifically,
with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness Marie Friedman, without any legitimate
reason, and in retaliation for witness Marie Friedmans testimony and lawful participation in
the above case, DARREN MEADE published numerous defamatory, harassing online
complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning Marie Friedman. Said complaints
accuse witness Marie Friedman of committing perjury and other criminal acts, and associate
her with child molestation, child pornography, and pipe bombs. One of these complaints
has appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8 million webpages almost every day for the last
two years. DARREN MEADE specially engineered and optimized these complaints to
enhance their online visibility and presence, such that the complaints appear in benign,
E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Google-type searches of and for Marie Friedman or her husband, Raymond Friedman.
Defendants acts produced detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an
indictable offense. Defendant committed this act for financial gain.

COUNT 4
COMES NOW Benjamin John Smith, as Prosecuting Attorney of Sac County, Iowa,
and in the name and by the authority of the State of Iowa, accuses Defendant, DARREN
MITCHELL MEADE (Defendant) of the crime of WITNESS TAMPERING, an aggravated
misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code sections 720.4, 708.7, and 703.1, committed as
follows: Beginning on or around September 11, 2012, through July 2014, Defendant, with
the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Mona Wehde, a States
witness in State v. Richter, Sac County District Court, Case No. FECR011900. Specifically,
with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness Mona Wehde, without any legitimate
reason, and in retaliation for witness Mona Wehdes testimony and lawful participation in the
above case, DARREN MEADE published numerous defamatory, harassing online
complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning Mona Wehde. Said complaints accuse
witness Mona Wehde of committing perjury and other criminal acts. One of these
complaints has appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8 million webpages almost every
day for the last two years. DARREN MEADE specially engineered and optimized these
complaints to enhance their online visibility and presence, such that the complaints appear
in benign, Google-type searches of and for Mona Wehde and her business. Defendants
acts produced detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an indictable offense.
Defendant committed this act for financial gain.

COUNT 5
COMES NOW Benjamin John Smith, as Prosecuting Attorney of Sac County, Iowa,
and in the name and by the authority of the State of Iowa, accuses Defendant, DARREN
MITCHELL MEADE (Defendant) of the crime of WITNESS TAMPERING, an aggravated
misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code sections 720.4, 708.7, and 703.1, committed as
follows: Beginning on or around September 11, 2012, through July 2014, Defendant, with
the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Michael Roberts, a States
witness in State v. Richter, Sac County District Court, Case No. FECR011900. Specifically,
with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness Michael Roberts, without any legitimate
E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

reason, and in retaliation for witness Michael Robertss testimony and lawful participation in
the above case, DARREN MEADE published numerous defamatory, harassing online
complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning Michael Roberts. Said complaints
accuse witness Michael Roberts of committing perjury, fraud, child molestation, and other
criminal acts. One of these complaints has appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8
million webpages almost every day for the last two years. DARREN MEADE specially
engineered and optimized these complaints to enhance their online visibility and presence,
such that the complaints appear in benign, Google-type searches of and for Michael
Roberts, his wife, his children, and his business. Defendants acts produced detrimental
effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an indictable offense. Defendant committed this
act for financial gain.

COUNT 6
COMES NOW Benjamin John Smith, as Prosecuting Attorney of Sac County, Iowa,
and in the name and by the authority of the State of Iowa, accuses Defendant, DARREN
MITCHELL MEADE (Defendant) of the crime of WITNESS TAMPERING, an aggravated
misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code sections 720.4, 708.7, and 703.1, committed as
follows: Beginning December 27, 2012, through July 2014, Defendant, with the intent to
produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Dr. Scott Connelly. Specifically, with the
intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm Dr. Scott Connelly, without any legitimate reason, and
in retaliation for Dr. Scott Connellys lawful participation in a criminal investigation and
expected testimony in a criminal case, DARREN MEADE published numerous defamatory,
harassing online complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning Dr. Scott Connelly. Said
complaints accuse witness Dr. Scott Connelly of fraud. One of these complaints has
appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8 million webpages almost every day for the last two
years. DARREN MEADE specially engineered and optimized these complaints to enhance
their online visibility and presence, such that the complaints appear in benign, Google-type
searches of and for Dr. Scott Connelly. Defendants acts produced detrimental effects within
Iowa. Witness Tampering is an indictable offense. Defendant committed this act for financial
gain.

COUNT 7
COMES NOW Benjamin John Smith, as Prosecuting Attorney of Sac County, Iowa,
E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

and in the name and by the authority of the State of Iowa, accuses Defendant, DARREN
MITCHELL MEADE (Defendant) of the crime of WITNESS TAMPERING, an aggravated
misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code sections 720.4, 708.7, and 703.1, committed as
follows: Beginning on or around December 27, 2012, through July 2014, Defendant, with
the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Sac County Sheriff, Ken
McClure, a States witness in State v. Richter, Sac County District Court, Case No.
FECR011900. Specifically, with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness Sheriff, Ken
McClure, without any legitimate reason, and in retaliation for witness Sheriff, Ken McClures
testimony and lawful participation in the above case, DARREN MEADE published
numerous defamatory, harassing online complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning
Sheriff, Ken McClure. Said complaints accuse witness Sheriff, Ken McClure of corruption.
One of these complaints has appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8 million webpages
almost every day for the last two years. DARREN MEADE specially engineered and
optimized these complaints to enhance their online visibility and presence, such that the
complaints appear in benign, Google-type searches of and for Sheriff, Ken McClure.
Defendants acts produced detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an
indictable offense. Defendant committed this act for financial gain.

COUNT 8
COMES NOW Benjamin John Smith, as Prosecuting Attorney of Sac County, Iowa,
and in the name and by the authority of the State of Iowa, accuses Defendant, DARREN
MITCHELL MEADE (Defendant) of the crime of WITNESS TAMPERING, an aggravated
misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code sections 720.4, 708.7, and 703.1, committed as
follows: Beginning on or around December 27, 2012, through July 2014, Defendant, with
the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Iowa DCI Special Agent (SA)
Trent Vileta, a States witness in State v. Richter, Sac County District Court, Case No.
FECR011900. Specifically, with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness SA Trent
Vileta, without any legitimate reason, and in retaliation for witness SA Trent Viletas
testimony and lawful participation in the above case, DARREN MEADE published
numerous defamatory, harassing online complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning
SA Trent Vileta. Said complaints accuse witness SA Trent Vileta of corruption. One of
these complaints has appeared on each of RipOff Reports 1.8 million webpages almost
every day for the last two years. DARREN MEADE specially engineered and optimized
these complaints to enhance their online visibility and presence, such that the complaints
E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

appear in benign, Google-type searches of and for SA Trent Vileta. Defendants acts
produced detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an indictable offense.
Defendant committed this act for financial gain.

COUNT 9
COMES NOW Benjamin John Smith, as Prosecuting Attorney of Sac County, Iowa,
and in the name and by the authority of the State of Iowa, accuses Defendant, DARREN
MITCHELL MEADE (Defendant) of the crime of WITNESS TAMPERING, an aggravated
misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code sections 720.4, 708.7, and 703.1, committed as
follows: Beginning on or around December 27, 2012, through July 2014, Defendant, with
the intent to produce detrimental effects within Iowa, harassed Dr. John Pitman, a States
witness in State v. Richter, Sac County District Court, Case No. FECR011900. Specifically,
with the intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm witness Dr. John Pitman, without any legitimate
reason, and in retaliation for witness Dr. John Pitmans testimony and lawful participation in
the above case, DARREN MEADE published numerous defamatory, harassing online
complaints on www.ripoffreport.com concerning Dr. John Pitman. Said complaints
accuse witness Dr. John Pitman of murder, having sexually transmitted diseases, doing
shabby surgery work on his patients, and engaging on other conduct that would expose
him to hatred, contempt, and / or ridicule. One of these complaints has appeared on each
of RipOff Reports 1.8 million webpages almost every day for the last two years. DARREN
MEADE specially engineered and optimized these complaints to enhance their online
visibility and presence, such that the complaints appear in benign, Google-type searches of
and for Dr. John Pitman, his family, and his business. Defendants acts produced
detrimental effects within Iowa. Witness Tampering is an indictable offense. Defendant
committed this act for financial gain.

COUNT 10
COMES NOW Benjamin John Smith, as Prosecuting Attorney of Sac County, Iowa,
and in the name and by the authority of the State of Iowa, accuses Defendant, DARREN
MITCHELL MEADE (Defendant) of the crime of OBSTRUCTING PROSECUTION, an
aggravated misdemeanor in violation of Iowa Code section 719.3, committed as follows:
beginning on or around April 13, 2012, through May 17, 2012, Defendant knowingly made
available false evidence or furnishes false information to law enforcement in Sac County,
E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

Iowa, with the intent that the information be used in State v. Richter, Sac County District
Court, Case No. FECR011900, IOWA CODE 719.3 (2014) Obstructing Prosecution is an
indictable offense. Iowa Const. Art. 1 11; IOWA CODE 903.1(2) (2013); IOWA R. CRIM. P.
2.4(2) (2014) Defendant committed this crime for financial gain.














E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

WITNESS LIST

KARIN E. GLAAB, Court Reporter
TERRIE C. BARKER, Court Reporter
TINA CHURCH, Private Investigator
DR. SCOTT CONNELLY, Witness
JUSTIN CROSSMAN, Employee, Xcentric Ventures
PAUL PORTELLI, Witness
MICHAEL ROBERTS, Witness
ADAM KUNZ, Employee, Xcentric Ventures
IOWA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Custodian of Records
ERNEST LUKE ADAMS, Progenex Employee
RYAN STEVEN PAGE, Progenex Employee
STEVE SHAMION, Progenex Employee
AARON THOMAS, Progenex Employee
JP MORGAN CHASE, Custodian of Records
WELLS FARGO BANK, Custodian of Records
BANK OF AMERICA, Custodian of Records
DR. JOHN PITMAN, Witness
RAYMOND FRIEDMAN, Witness
MONA WEHDE, Witness
KEN MCCLURE, SHERIFF, Sac County, Iowa
TERRY KLOOSTER, (former) Special Agent in Charge, Division of Criminal Investigation
CRAIG MACKAMAN, Special Agent, Division of Criminal Investigation
CLERK OF COURT, Sac County, Iowa
AMERICA ONLINE (AOL), Custodian of Records
E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

GOOGLE, Custodian of Records
PRAIRIE INET, Custodian of Records
SHAWN RICHARDSON, Computer Technician
COX COMMUNICATIONS, Custodian of Records
METRO PCS, Custodian of Records
SPRINT, Custodian of Records
VERIZON WIRELESS, Custodian of Records
JULIA BOWMAN, Detective, Laguna Beach Police Department
WILLIAM BONDURANT, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation
DANIEL DANINO, Computer Technician / Witness
FACEBOOK, Custodian of Records
SIAMACK YAGHOBI, Occupation Unknown


E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
State of Iowa Courts
Type: Approval of Trial Information
Case Number Case Title
FECR012634 STATE VS DARREN MITCHELL MEADE
On this date, I have reviewed the attached Trial Information and the accompanying Minutes
of Testimony and find that they contain evidence which, if unexplained, is sufficient to
warrant a conviction by a trial jury. Being satisfied from the showing made that the case
should be prosecuted, I approve the Trial Information.
Release conditions are set by separate Order of the Court.
So Ordered
Electronically signed on 2014-09-02 11:36:13 page 12 of 12
E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT






IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SAC COUNTY
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff,

v.

DARREN MITCHELL MEADE,
Defendant.


ORDER SETTING ARRAIGNMENT
AND BOND



The TRIAL INFORMATION and the MINUTES OF EVIDENCE in this matter
have been examined and found to contain sufficient evidence, if unexlained, to !arrant
a conviction in a trial b" #ur", therefore, this matter shall be set for Arrai$nment.

IT IS ORDERED, the Defendant shall ersonall" aear for Arraignmen at the
Sac %ount" %ourthouse, District %ourtroom, Sac %it", Io!a on the !!
n"
da" of
Se#em$er !%&' at ()%% a.m..
The Defendant is advised that failure to aear !ill result in the issuance of an
arrest !arrant.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, the Defendant&s bond and conditions for release
from custod" in this matter shall be'
Defendant is released on ersonal reco$ni(ance.
)ond is set in the amount of *++++++++++++++++.
)ond ma" be unsecured.
)ond must be cash or secured in the amount of the )ond.
,-. cash ma" be osted.
B*n" #revi*+,-. ,e ,/a-- 0*nin+e.
%ler/ of %ourt shall issue a summons for Defendant to Aear.
%ler/ of %ourt shall issue an nation!ide arrest !arrant.
O/er C*n"ii*n, *1 Re-ea,e)
De1en"an ,/a-- *$e. a-- Fe"era-, Sae, an" L*0a- -a2,.
The Defendant shall have no contact !ith the victim or an" !itness set
forth in the minutes of evidence in this matter.
The Defendant shall be on re0trial suervision to the Second 1udicial
District Deartment of %orrectional Services.
Other'
3 4 De1en"an i, Or"ere" * imme"iae-. *$ain a S+$,an0e A$+,e
Eva-+ai*n an" #r*vi"e i * /e C*+r. Fai-+re * "* ,* ma. re,+- in /e
rev*0ai*n *1 De1en"an5, 6re Tria- Re-ea,e.

E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
State of Iowa Courts
Type: ORDER FOR ARRAIGNMENT
Case Number Case Title
FECR012634 STATE VS DARREN MITCHELL MEADE
So Ordered
Electronically signed on 2014-09-02 11:36:14 page 2 of 2
E-FILED 2014 SEP 02 11:35 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY


STATE OF IOWA, ) CASE NO: FECR012634
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) APPEARANCE
)
DARREN MITCHELL MEADE, )
Defendant )


COMES NOW the undersigned attorney, A. Zane Blessum, and hereby enters his
Appearance on behalf of Defendant, DARREN MITCHELL MEADE, in the above
captioned matter.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ A. Zane Blessum
____________________________
A. Zane Blessum (AT0000899)
2501 Westown Parkway, Suite 1202
West Des Moines, IA 50266
Telephone: 515-221-1666
Facsimile: 515-225-6999
azb@blessumlaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

Original E-Filed.

Copy to:
Sac County Attorney





E-FILED 2014 SEP 19 10:27 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
E-FILED 2014 SEP 19 10:31 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
E-FILED 2014 SEP 19 10:31 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SAC COUNTY
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DARREN MITCHELL MEADE,
Defendant.
CASE No. FECR012634

MOTION TO QUASH
ARREST WARRANT


COMES NOW the State of Iowa and for its Motion to Quash Arrest Warrant
states an attorney has filed an appearance and a written arraignment in this
matter.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the State respectfully requests that
the arrest warrant be quashed.




__________________________
Benjamin John Smith
Sac County Attorney
Sac County Courthouse
100 NW State St., Suite 9
Sac City IA 50583
Telephone: 712-662-4791
Email: attorney@saccounty.org

E-FILED 2014 SEP 19 11:16 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SAC COUNTY
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DARREN MITCHELL MEADE,
Defendant.
CASE No. FECR!"#$%

ORDER &UASHIN'
ARREST WARRANT


T(i) *atte+ ,a*e -efo+e t(e Co.+t on t(e State/) *otion to 0.a)( t(e 1a++ant
fo+ Defendant/) a++e)t. T(e Co.+t, .2on t(e +e,o+d and -ein3 advi)ed in t(e
2+e*i)e), FINDS and ORDERS t(at fo+ t(e +ea)on) )et fo+t( in t(e State/)
+elated *otion, t(e a++e)t 1a++ant i)).ed (e+ein )(all -e and i) 0.a)(ed.




E-FILED 2014 SEP 19 11:27 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
State of Iowa Courts
Type: OTHER ORDER
Case Number Case Title
FECR012634 STATE VS DARREN MITCHELL MEADE
So Ordered
Electronically signed on 2014-09-19 11:27:06 page 2 of 2
E-FILED 2014 SEP 19 11:27 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
2RCR02

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY

STATE OF IOWA,

PLAINTIFF,

vs.

DARREN MITCHELL MEADE ,

DEFENDANT.


Case No. 02811 FECR012634



ORDER FOR TRIAL



1. Defendant filed a Written Arraignment and Plea of Not Guilty to all charges on
September 19, 2014.

2. The Defendant's name as charged in the Trial Information is true and correct.

3. Defendant waives the right to speedy trial.

4. Defendant is represented by A. Zane Blessum.

IT IS, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE COURT that the jury trial of this case
shall commence on November 4, 2014, at 9 a.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Pretrial Conference is scheduled on 10/20/2014
at 9:00 AM at the Sac Co. Courthouse, 100 NW State St., Sac City, Iowa.

If the Defendant chooses to take depositions of minuted State's witnesses,
depositions are ordered pursuant to I.R.Cr.P.2.13(1). If the Defendant takes depositions
of State witnesses, the Defendant shall comply with I.R.Cr.P.2.13(3) and the State may
depose Defendant's witnesses. If Defendant's counsel is appointed, the depositions
shall be at public expense. Upon Defendant's request, the State is ordered to disclose
evidence pursuant to I.R.Cr.P. 2.14(2). If the Defendant requests discretionary
discovery, the State is ordered to comply with the provisions of I.R.Cr.P. 2.14(b). If the
Defendant opts to request discretionary discovery and the State requests reciprocal
discovery, the Defendant shall comply with the disclosure required by I.R.Cr.P.2.14(3).
Either party may object to the order for discretionary discovery and have the matter set
for hearing. The State shall disclose any exculpatory evidence, including any evidence
relating to the credibility of minuted witnesses.

1 of 3
E-FILED 2014 SEP 22 10:55 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
CLERK TO FURNISH COPIES TO:
SAC COUNTY ATTORNEY
ANTHONY ZANE BLESSUM
DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR
2 of 3
E-FILED 2014 SEP 22 10:55 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
State of Iowa Courts
Case Number Case Title
FECR012634 STATE VS DARREN MITCHELL MEADE
Type: ORDER SETTING TRIAL
So Ordered
Electronically signed on 2014-09-22 10:54:47
3 of 3
E-FILED 2014 SEP 22 10:55 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
E-FILED 2014 SEP 25 9:49 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY


STATE OF IOWA, ) CASE NO: FECR012634
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) NOTICE OF COUNSEL
) WITHDRAW
DARREN MITCHELL MEADE, )
Defendant )


COMES NOW the undersigned attorney, A. Zane Blessum, and hereby enters his
Withdraw of Counsel on behalf of Defendant, DARREN MITCHELL MEADE, in the
above captioned matter. The Defendant, DARREN MITCHELL MEADE has obtained
and new counsel.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ A. Zane Blessum
____________________________
A. Zane Blessum (AT0000899)
2501 Westown Parkway, Suite 1202
West Des Moines, IA 50266
Telephone: 515-221-1666
Facsimile: 515-225-6999
azb@blessumlaw.com
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

Original E-Filed.

Copy to:
Sac County Attorney
Glen S. Downey Attorney for Defendant


E-FILED 2014 SEP 25 3:32 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
2RCR01
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY

STATE OF IOWA,

PLAINTIFF,

vs.

DARREN MITCHELL MEADE ,

DEFENDANT.

Case No. 02811 FECR012634



O R D E R

The Notice of Counsel Withdraw comes before the Court. Defendant has obtained new
counsel.
IT IS ORDERED that attorney A. Zane Blessum is relieved of any further duties in this
file.

CLERK TO FURNISH COPIES TO:
SAC COUNTY ATTORNEY
ANTHONY ZANE BLESSUM
GLEN DOWNEY
Court Administration
1 of 2
E-FILED 2014 SEP 26 10:42 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
State of Iowa Courts
Case Number Case Title
FECR012634 STATE VS DARREN MITCHELL MEADE
Type: OTHER ORDER
So Ordered
Electronically signed on 2014-09-26 10:41:54
2 of 2
E-FILED 2014 SEP 26 10:42 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY
STATE OF IOWA : Case No: FECR012634
:
v. : MOTION FOR BILL OF
: PARTICULARS
DARREN MITCHELL MEADE :
:
Defendant :
:

COMES NOW Darren Mitchell Meade, by and through undersigned counsel, Glen S.
Downey, and hereby moves this Honorable Court for an order requiring the county attorney to
furnish a Bill of Particulars setting forth the specific nature of the offenses charged in the Trial
Information and Minutes of Testimony. As presently constituted, the States charges fail to
adequately identify the specific acts upon which his charges are based. As grounds for this
Motion, it is stated:
1. The September 2, 2014 Trial Information lodged against Meade contains ten
counts of general conduct which do not provide Meade under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure
2.11(6) with the necessary information to prepare an adequate defense.
2. In order for counsel to provide effective representation to Meade, and in order for
Meade to adequately prepare a defense by making clear the nature and boundary of the charges
against him, and in order to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial, the following information is
required:
a. The dates on which Meade allegedly attempted to prevent or dissuade Dr. Scott
Connelly from causing a complaint, indictment, information or parole violation to be prosecuted;
b. The locations in which such attempts were made on Dr. Connelly;
c. The alleged defamatory or harassing statements Meade made about or to Dr.
Connelly in order to prevent or dissuade him from complaining;
E-FILED 2014 SEP 30 2:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
[2]

d. The dates on which Meade allegedly prevented or dissuaded Dr. Connelly from
giving testimony at a trial or proceeding by publishing harassing or defamatory statements;
e. The locations of such attempts;
f. The alleged harassing or defamatory statements that were intended to prevent or
dissuade Dr. Connelly from testifying;
g. The exact Ripoff Report complaints that Meade allegedly removed about himself
and others without authorization on or about February 15, 2011;
h. The location at which Meade allegedly committed such unauthorized access in
(g);
i. The information on or about May 2, 2014 that Meade allegedly threatened to
disclose about Xcentric Ventures that would put the company at risk;
j. The exact Ripoff Report complaints about Daniel Danio that on or about
September 13, 2013, Meade allegedly threatened to keep up that would unlawfully expose
Danio to hatred, contempt and ridicule;
k. The alleged actions that Meade took from July 1, 2010 through February 15, 2011
that harbored or concealed or aided the principals to one felony or another with the intent that
they avoid detection, prosecution or trial;
l. The alleged felonies and perpetrators of such felonies that Meade was purportedly
attempted to harbor or conceal;
m. The locations that such alleged felonies took place;
n. The amount of the bribe that Meade allegedly took on or about August 15, 2014
to influence his testimony in Small Justice, LLC v. Xcentric Ventures;
o. The person whom allegedly bribed Meade;
E-FILED 2014 SEP 30 2:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
[3]

p. The location at which Meade allegedly accepted said bribe;
q. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published
about Raymond Friedman in a purported attempted to retaliate against Friedman for his
testimony in State v. Richter;
r. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly
published about Marie Friedman in a purported attempted to retaliate against Ms. Friedman for
her testimony in State v. Richter;
s. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published
about Mona Wehde in a purported attempted to retaliate against Wehde for her testimony in
State v. Richter;
t. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published
about Michael Roberts in a purported attempted to retaliate against Roberts for his testimony in
State v. Richter;
u. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published
about Dr. Scott Connelly in a purported attempted to retaliate against Connelly for his lawful
participation in a California criminal investigation;
v. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published
about Sac County Sherriff Ken McClure in a purported attempted to retaliate against McClure
for his testimony in State v. Richter;
w. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published
about Iowa DCI Special Agent Trent Vileta in a purported attempted to retaliate against Vileta
for his testimony in State v. Richter;
E-FILED 2014 SEP 30 2:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
[4]

x. The exact RipOff Report complaints or statements that Meade allegedly published
about Dr. John Pitman in a purported attempted to retaliate against Pitman for his testimony in
State v. Richter; and
y. The exact statements and false information Meade allegedly provided to law
enforcement in Sac County, Iowa between April 13, 2012 and May 17, 2012.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.11(6) provides for a bill of particulars as follows:
When an indictment or information charges an offense in accordance with this
rule, but fails to specify the particulars of the offense sufficiently to fairly enable
the defendant to prepare a defense, the court may, on written motion of the
defendant, require the prosecuting attorney to furnish the defendant with a bill of
particulars containing such particulars as may be necessary for the preparation of
the defense. A motion for a bill of particulars may be made any time prior to or
within ten days after arraignment unless the time be extended by the court for
good cause shown.

This rule codifies the due process protections afforded by the Sixth Amendment that require the
accused be advised of the crime charged with sufficient certainty to enable him to prepare his
defense. See Cole v. Arkansas, 222 U.S. 196, 201 (1948); Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29,
40 (1896). Indeed, the purpose of a bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the nature of
the charges against him and to prevent or minimize the element of surprise at trial. United States
v. Garrett, 797 F.2d 656, 665 (8th Cir. 1986). A Defendants motion to for a bill of particulars
should be granted when the Trial Information and Minutes of Testimony fail to apprise him of
the particulars of the offense sufficiently to fairly enable him to prepare his defense. State v.
Marti, 290 N.W.2d 570 (Iowa).

E-FILED 2014 SEP 30 2:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
[5]

ARGUMENT

Witness Tampering:
Eight of the ten counts of the Trial Information against Meade charge him with Witness
Tampering in violation of Iowa Code section 720.4. Section 720.4 provides three methods of
committing this offense: (1) offering a bribe, (2) making threats or forcibly or fraudulently
detaining or restraining, or (3) harassing in retaliation. State v. LaPointe, 418 N.W.2d 49, 51
(Iowa 1988).
The first two methods are not at issue as County Attorney Smith only alleges that Meade
published defamatory statements about witnesses in retaliation for their lawful participation and
testimony in State v. Richter, Sac County District Court, Case No, FECR011900. To establish
this method of witness tampering, Smith will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
Meade (1) "in retaliation for anything lawfully done" by a "witness" in a "case," (2) "harassed
such witness." Iowa Code section 720.4; LaPointe, 418 N.W.2d at 52.
Apparently Smiths theory is that Meades investigative journalism was conducted and
published with the intent to harass the states witnesses in the Richter case. Apart from the
obvious problem that such journalism is protected by the First Amendment to the United States
Constitution (which shall be asserted separately, along with other issues, in a distinct Motion to
Dismiss), Smith makes only conclusory assertions about which complaints or statements he
alleges were intended to harass the witness. Without specific reference to the exact complaints
or statements Smith is alleging Meade published to harass the witnesses, Meade has no ability to
prepare a defense to such charges.
Although Smith attached well over a thousand pages of exhibits to the Minutes of
E-FILED 2014 SEP 30 2:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
[6]

Testimony in this action, Smiths avalanche of almost entirely superfluous paperwork (that has
almost nothing to do with Darren Meade and even less to do with anything that Darren Meade
may or may not have done in Iowa) does not reveal the exact defamatory complaints or
statements that Meade allegedly published to harass the witnesses. At a bare minimum, Smith
and the State have an obligation to provide due process to Meade and inform him of the exact
statements that they intend to show were meant to harass the States witnesses. Cole v. Arkansas,
333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948) (holding that the due process guarantees of the fourteenth amendment
requires the accused to be advised of the specific charge against him).
Count I On-going Criminal Conduct:
With respect to Count I of the Trial Information, County Attorney Smith is charging
Meade with alleged on-going criminal conduct including, preventing or dissuading a person from
testifying or reporting a crime, extortion, embezzlement, unauthorized access to computers,
accessory after the fact and accepting a bribe.
Accepting Smiths allegations as true, all of the alleged crimes occurred solely in
California and Smith makes no assertions in either the Trial Information or the Minutes of
Testimony how such conduct relates to Iowa or crimes that allegedly occurred in Iowa. Without
more specificity as to the information or theory Smith believes allows to charge a California
citizen in Iowa with crimes that occurred in California, Meade cannot adequately prepare a
defense to such charges and his due process rights will have been violated. Cole v. Arkansas,
333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948) (holding that the due process guarantees of the fourteenth amendment
requires the accused to be advised of the specific charge against him).
WHEREFORE, Defendant Meade moves the court to compel the State to plead the
witness tampering, on-going criminal conduct and obstructing prosecution with sufficient
E-FILED 2014 SEP 30 2:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
[7]

particularity as to allow Meade to mount a constitutionally adequate defense.


Respectfully Submitted,
THE LAW OFFICES OF GLEN S. DOWNEY, LLC

/s Glen S. Downey__________________
By: Glen S. Downey AT0012428
301 East Walnut Street, Suite 4
Des Moines, IA 50309
Tel: 412-865-7110
glen@downey-law.net
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT MEADE



Original filed.
Copy to:
Sac County Attorney



PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true
copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon
each of the attorneys of record, or the parties
if unrepresented, at their respective addresses
disclosed on the pleadings.

By: _____ U.S. Mail _____ Fax
_____ Courthouse Mail _____ Hand delivered
_____Certified Mail _____ Other

Signature:_______________________________________

Date:____________________________________________

E-FILED 2014 SEP 30 2:18 PM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY
STATE OF IOWA : Case No: FECR012634
:
v. :
DARREN MITCHELL MEADE : MOTION TO DISMISS
1

:
Defendant :
:

COMES NOW Darren Mitchell Meade, by and through undersigned counsel, Glen S.
Downey, and moves to dismiss Counts 1 through 10 of the Trial Information under Iowa R. Crim
Proc. 2.11(6)(a). In support of this motion, Defendant states the following:
1. The criminal charges against Darren Meade were filed without an assertion of probable
cause and without the specificity required to provide Meade with the due process necessary to
adequately defend himself.
2. Counsel has filed a separate Motion for Bill of Particulars asking that Court order the
state to supplement the Trial Information and Minutes of Testimony. Those documents, while
voluminous, are devoid of specific criminal conduct which would allow the State to charge
Meade with one count of Ongoing Criminal Conduct (Iowa Code 706.2(4)), eight counts of
Witness Tampering (Iowa Code 720.4; 708.7 & 703.1) and one count of Obstructing
Prosecution (Iowa Code 719.3).
3. This case is profoundly and substantially flawed and reeks of retaliation by the County
Attorney for Meade engaging in constitutionally protected speech that was critical of County
Attorney Smith and his performance as a prosecutor.

1
Undersigned counsel wants to alert this Honorable Court in addition to filing this Motion to
Dismiss; counsel will be filing a Motion to Disqualify County Attorney Ben Smith, a Motion to
Suppress and a Motion to Change Venue. Counsel will be out of the country from October 3,
2014 through October 8, 2014 and will file these Motions shortly after returning.
E-FILED 2014 OCT 03 9:29 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
4. Furthermore, much of the criminal conduct the Trial Information alleges occurred was
conduct that obviously took place in California and is therefore beyond the territorial jurisdiction
of Iowa and County Attorney Smith, a fact so obvious that it only adds to the supposition that
County Attorney Smith is using his prosecutorial powers not to punish crime but to silence his
critics.
5. Never before has a journalist been charged in Iowa (or elsewhere) for merely reporting
about his belief that a criminal prosecution resulted in the incarceration of an innocent woman.
6. Not only does the attempted prosecution of Meade punish him for engaging in his
constitutional right to criticize public officials and report on controversies and accusations, this
prosecution chills the rights of all journalists to report on matters of public concern, especially
when those matters are critical of someone with the power to criminally prosecute them if they
disagree with that reporting.
7. Mere disagreement with and mere inaccuracies in the reporting are not sufficient to
support a criminal conviction, let alone enough to support to initiation of a criminal prosecution.
Criminal charges are never appropriate if used to silence critical speech.
8. Bringing criminal charges against Meade impinges on one of the cornerstones of our
democracy the need for a robust and wide-open public debate and as such, justice demands
the charges against Meade be dismissed in their entirety.
9. The bases for this Motion to Dismiss are more fully discussed in the brief filed in
support.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Darren Mitchell Meade, respectfully requests the Court
dismiss the states charges as a matter of law.
Respectfully Submitted,
E-FILED 2014 OCT 03 9:29 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
THE LAW OFFICES OF GLEN S. DOWNEY, LLC

/s Glen S. Downey__________________
By: Glen S. Downey AT0012428
301 East Walnut Street, Suite 4
Des Moines, IA 50309
Tel: 412-865-7110
glen@downey-law.net
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT MEADE



Original filed.
Copy to:
Sac County Attorney




PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true
copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon
each of the attorneys of record, or the parties
if unrepresented, at their respective addresses
disclosed on the pleadings.

By: _____ U.S. Mail _____ Fax
_____ Courthouse Mail _____ Hand delivered
_____Certified Mail _____ Other

Signature:_______________________________________

Date:____________________________________________

E-FILED 2014 OCT 03 9:29 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY
STATE OF IOWA : Case No: FECR012634
:
v. : BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
DARREN MITCHELL MEADE : MOTION TO DISMISS
:
Defendant :
:

BACKGROUND
The State of Iowa has brought a ten-count trial information charging one count of
Ongoing Criminal Conduct (Iowa Code 706.2(4)), eight counts of Witness Tampering (Iowa
Code 720.4; 708.7 & 703.1) and one count of Obstructing Prosecution (Iowa Code 719.3).
These charges against Meade must be dismissed as a matter of law for several reasons.
First, even if all of the States rather preposterous evidence and theories are taken at face
value, all of Meades conduct would have occurred in California and not within Iowa and
therefore, the State of Iowa has no territorial jurisdiction to pursue such charges against Meade.
Second, Meades conduct in writing and posting stories relating to the Tracy Richter murder
prosecution and his allegations of prosecutorial misconduct by Sac County Attorney Ben Smith
does not fall within the ambit of prohibited conduct under section 720.4 related to witness
tampering. Third, the witness tampering and obstructing prosecution charges attempt to
criminalize conduct that is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
County Attorney Ben Smith can disagree with Meades assessment of his performance of as a
prosecutor and investigator and can disagree with Meades opinion that not all of the States
witnesses in the Richter case were truthful on the stand, but the First Amendment clearly protects
such criticisms, indeed, the First Amendment places such criticisms on the highest rung of
protected speech and therefore any attempt to criminalize such criticisms runs afoul of First
E-FILED 2014 OCT 03 9:29 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
[2]

Amendment jurisprudence. And finally, the criminal charges brought against Meade reek of
prosecutorial vindictiveness for Meades engagement is this constitutionally protected right to
criticize government officials namely County Attorney Smith and the officers who investigated
the Richter case and to report on the theories and accusations surrounding that murder case.
ARGUMENT
I. THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE DO NOT ALLEGE FACTS SUFFICIENT TO
CONFER TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION ON IOWA BECAUSE EVEN TAKEN
THE STATES EVIDENCE AT FACE VALUE, ALL OF THE ALLEGED ACTS
BY MEADE OCCURRED WHOLLY IN CALIFORNIA.

As an initial matter, Meade moves to dismiss all of the counts against him because even
accepting the wild facts alleged in Smiths minutes of evidence as true, all of the conduct alleged
to have been committed by Meade occurred within the state of California and therefore the state
of Iowa does not have territorial jurisdiction to prosecute Meade for these alleged offenses.
Territorial jurisdiction to prosecute a criminal offense generally rests in the courts of the
state where the offense was committed. State v. Liggins, 524 N.W.2d 181, 184 (Iowa 1994). It is
an essential element of every crime, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
of the United States Constitution requires the State to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at
184-85. Iowas criminal jurisdiction statute is found in Iowa Code section 803.1. This section
provides, in pertinent part:
1. A person is subject to prosecution in this state for an offense which the person commits
within or outside this state, by the person's own conduct or that of another for which the
person is legally accountable, if:
a. The offense is committed either wholly or partly within this state.
b. Conduct of the person outside the state constitutes an attempt to commit an
offense within this state.
c. Conduct of the person outside the state constitutes a conspiracy to commit an
offense within this state.
d. The offense is based upon a statute that specifically prohibits conduct wholly
outside of the state, and the conduct bears a reasonable relation to a legitimate
E-FILED 2014 OCT 03 9:29 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
[3]

state interest, and the person knows or should know that the conduct is likely to
affect that interest.
e. Conduct of the person within this state constitutes an attempt, solicitation or
conspiracy to commit an offense in another jurisdiction, which conduct is
punishable under the laws of both this state and such other jurisdiction.

Nothing in the Trial Information or Minutes of Testimony alleges that Meade ever set
foot in Iowa. Meade is and has been a resident of California during all of the times frames
outlined in the States Trial Information and has never traveled to Iowa during any of the times
the State alleges he committed the alleged crimes detailed by the State. This fact is not in
dispute.
Count 1 (A-G) of the Trial Information related to on-going criminal conduct (Iowa Code
section 706A.2(4)) specifically states for every alleged crime that in the State of California,
Defendant. Each sub-part then lists an alleged crime including extortion, embezzlement,
accepting a bribe, etc. There are zero allegations that any of these alleged crimes occurred in
Iowa, had any connection to people residing in or doing business in Iowa and absolutely no
allegations that any of the on-going criminal conduct outlined in Count 1 was part of a
conspiracy to commit any offense in the state of Iowa. In fact, all of the allegations in Count 1 of
the Trial Information related to a business dispute in California which was litigated in the
California courts between various nutrition companies and its various officers and agents. That
litigation resulted in a binding settlement agreement between the parties that was signed in
California in 2011. Again, all of this alleged conduct took place in California, involving
California parties or residents who had zero connection to Iowa. Therefore, none of the statutory
requirements outlined in Iowa Code Section 803.1 have been met conferring territorial
jurisdiction on the State of Iowa for prosecution of such crimes as alleged against Meade.
E-FILED 2014 OCT 03 9:29 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
[4]

Similarly, the counts related to witness tampering and obstructing prosecution involve
conduct that occurred in California. County Attorney Smith makes no allegations that Meade
ever spoke with or communicated with any of the witnesses in the Richter murder case that
Meade was allegedly harassing in retaliation for their testimony. At most, Smith alleges that
Meade published articles that he claims defamed the witnesses and that he published these
articles in retaliation for these witnesses testimony on behalf of the State. Laying aside whether
Smith can criminally charge for defamatory statements or whether the statements can even be
considered defamatory (both of which are taken up later), Smith does not allege that Meade ever
did any of the harassment in Iowa or that he even attempted to make sure the Iowa witnesses
were aware of his publications. Since there in no tangible connection to Iowa in Meades
publications, Iowa and County Attorney Smith lack the requisite territorial jurisdiction to
prosecute Meade for these publications.
II. THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE DO NOT ALLEGE FACTS THAT ARE
LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO CHARGE MEADE WITH THE CRIMES
OUTLINED IN THE TRIAL INFORMATIONAND MINUTESOF
TESTIMONY.

The witnesses tampering and obstructing prosecution charges against Meade are not
legally sufficient and therefore must be dismissed.
As stated above, County Attorney Smith does not allege that Meade attempted to make
sure the witnesses in question ever read or even knew about his publications or that he had the
intent to intimidate, annoy or alarm the witnesses and that he did so without a legitimate purpose.
See State v. Fratzke, 446 N.W. 781, 783 (Iowa 1989) (To prove harassment in retaliation for
something lawfully done, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant (1)
intended to intimidate, annoy, or alarm another person (2) by a communication in writing or by
E-FILED 2014 OCT 03 9:29 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
[5]

telephone (3) without legitimate purpose and (4) in a manner likely to cause the other person
annoyance or alarm).
Meades publications and articles while critical of County Attorney Smith and critical of
the veracity and backgrounds of some of the States witnesses, were all publications designed to
expose or right what Meade saw as an injustice. His purpose was to provide information and
documents to support what he believed was an unjust prosecution and as such, even if Amith
could make out some allegations that Meade had the intent to harass the witnesses in question,
Meade clearly had a legitimate purpose in publishing the articles and therefore there is no legally
sufficiency for the charges against him. Fratzke, 446 N.W. at 785 (holding that an individuals
vitriolic and obscenity-filled letter to a state trooper criticizing his handling of a traffic stop could
not be considering harassment because to hold that writing such a letter had no legitimate
purpose would be the equivalent to finding that the First Amendments promises are not worth
the paper they are written on).
1

III. THE MINUTES OF EVIDENCE ALLEGE CONDUCT THAT IS CLEARLY
PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND CANNOT BE
CRIMINALIZED MERELY BECAUSE SOME OF THE STATEMENTS
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY MEADE MAY TURN OUT TO BE
UNTRUE AT A LATER DATE.

Meade has the constitutional right under the First Amendment to publish stories critical of
County Attorney Smiths handling of the Tracey Richter murder prosecution and Smiths use of

1
Because Count 10 of the Trial Information related to obstructing prosecution (Iowa Code
719.3) is without any factual basis to allow Meade to determine what false information he
allegedly provided to law enforcement officials and on what purported dates he allegedly
provided such information, it is impossible to Meade to cogently argue whether such information
is legally sufficient to charge him. As stated in Meades separate Motion for Bill of Particulars,
this lack of factual specificity violates Meades due process rights. See Cole v. Arkansas, 222
U.S. 196, 201 (1948); Rosen v. United States, 161 U.S. 29, 40 (1896). As written and charged,
the obstructing prosecution lacks legally sufficiency because the charging documents do not note
what false information was provided to law enforcement officials that obstructed a prosecution.
E-FILED 2014 OCT 03 9:29 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
[6]

witnesses with questionable backgrounds and motives. County Attorney Smiths attempted use
of Iowas Witness Tampering statute (Iowa Code 720.4) and Obstructing Prosecution (Iowa
Code 719.3) against Meade is nothing less than an attempt to silence a critical engaged in
constitutionally protected speech.
As a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has NO power to
restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter or its content. Ashcroft v.
America Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, 573 (2002) (emphasis added). Any attempt by
Smith to claim that he is only punishing Meade and his publications because they were false and
therefore harassing of the states witnesses in the State v. Richter, Sac County District Court,
Case No. FECR011900 case is an argument that cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. The
U.S. Supreme Court has rejected such arguments saying [t]he First Amendments guarantee of
free speech does not extend only to categories of speech that survive an ad hoc balancing of
relative social costs and benefits. United States v. Stevens, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1585 (2010). Even
knowingly false statements do not lay outside First Amendment protection because the very
purpose of the First Amendment was to ensure that each person could be his own watchman
for truth, because the forefathers did not trust government to separate the true from the false for
us. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 545 (1945); see also Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414, 419
(1988) (The First Amendment is a value-free provision whose protection is not dependent on
the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered. (citations
omitted) (quoting NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445 (1963)); N.Y. Times Co., 376 U.S. at 271
(Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to
recognize and exception for any test of truth.).
E-FILED 2014 OCT 03 9:29 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
[7]

In fact, when confronted with the issue directly a few years ago, the Supreme Court
decided that false statements were indeed protected by the First Amendment and were not
subject to prosecution merely because they were knowingly false when uttered or published. See
United States v. Alvarez, 132 S.Ct. 2537 (2012). Indeed, as the Court made clear in Alvarez, the
constitutionally permissible response by the government or others to false speech is speech that
is true and not statutory or criminal prohibitions on such speech. Id. at 2550.
To the extent that County Attorney Smith will argue that Meades articles and published
statements about the states witnesses are being criminally punished because they are
defamatory, County Attorney Smith fails to take into account decades of jurisprudence
surrounding the neutral reporting privilege and its constitutional protection of publishers and
writers who are critical of public officials, including those persons, in this case witnesses, who
are involved in an event of public or general interest. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323
(1974); N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403
U.S. 29 (1971). Reporters such as Meade must have the leeway to report accusations and
counteraccusations, theories and counter theories when writing about controversies and such
reportage is given full First Amendment protection. Price v. Viking Penguin, Inc., 881 F.2d
1426, 1444 (8th Cir. 1989). Indeed, in looking at how reporters cover and report on
controversies, the Court must not look at the whether the statements were, in fact false or even
damaging, and must not inquire into the authors state of mind when writing or publishing the
statements, but must instead focus on whether the author is merely reporting other sources (even
theories that turn out to be false) in giving a full picture of the controversy. Id. at 1445-46. In
other words, the First Amendment provides protection to actual depictions of accusations and
controversies without regard to their falsity and truth and the actual malice standard of
E-FILED 2014 OCT 03 9:29 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
[8]

defamation (that is knowledge that the statements were false or reckless disregard of whether it
was false or not) becomes relevant only if the author or publisher fabricates an accusation instead
of simply reporting the accusations and statements of others even if untrue.
2
Id. at 1434; see also
Price v. Viking Penguin, Inc.,: The Neutral Reporting Privilege and Robust, Wide Open Debate,
75 Minn. L.Rev. 157, 182-85 (1990).
IV. THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE PROHIBITS COUNTY ATTORNEY SMITH
FROM USING HIS PROSECUTORIAL POWERS TO PUNISH MEADE FOR
HIS COMMENTS CRITICAL OF SMITH AND SMITHS WITNESSES IN
THE RICHTER MURDER TRIAL.

County Attorney Smith, it seems, has taken umbrage with Meades depictions of his
handling of the Richter investigation and prosecution and has brought to bear his resources and
power as the County Attorney to retaliate against Meade for such depictions. The due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, however, prohibits Smith from punishing Meade in
retaliation for Meades decision to investigate and publish critical comments on Smiths conduct
as Sac County Attorney. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974).

2
Furthermore, it should be noted that all of the cases delineating the actual malice defamation
standard are civil cases and not criminal cases. Public officials who seek redress for unfair
criticisms of their public or private actions are able to seek that redress in civil courts where they
must not only prove that the statement in question was false but that the defendant knew the
statement was false or was reckless in caring whether the statement was false. The case against
Meade is manifestly different in that the government official being criticized is seeking to use his
prosecutorial powers to punish and silence that criticism. In essence, this criminal prosecution is
an action for criminal defamation. County Attorney Smith is trying to resurrect the Sedition Act
of 1798 which criminalized the publication of seditious writings or those writings that were
false, scandalous, and malicious against the government and government officials with intent
to defame, or bring into contempt or disrepute the government. The Sedition Act of 1798 (An
act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States), Approved July 14, 1798.
Although the Sedition Act was never tested in the courts, N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan makes it
clear the Act could not withstand constitutional scrutiny, Although the Sedition Act was never
tested in this Court, the attack upon its validity has carried the day in the court of history. 376
U.S. 254, 276 (1964); Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969) (The Alien and Sedition
Laws constituted one of our sorriest chapters; and I had thought we had done with
foreverSuppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by
our Constitution).
E-FILED 2014 OCT 03 9:29 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
[9]

A bad faith or vindictive prosecution is generally defined as having been brought without
a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction; however, bad faith and harassing
prosecutions also encompass those prosecutions that are intended to retaliate for or discourage
the exercise of constitutional rights. PHE, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 743 F.Supp. 15
(D.C.D.C. 1990). Although prosecutorial discretion is broad, it is not unfettered. Selectivity in
the enforcement of criminal laws or prosecution in retaliation for the exercise of constitutional
rights is subject to constitutional constraints. U.S. v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 125 (1979). The
First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right of people to petition the
government for redress of grievances. U.S. Const., Amendment 1.
While it is true that false statements may seem have little value in and of themselves, they
are nonetheless constitutionally protected and the real issue is whether that freedom of speech
which all agree is constitutionally protected can be safeguarded by a rule allowing the imposition
of liability upon a courts determination that a statement is false and maliciously motivated.
New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 300 (1964); see also Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.,
418 U.S. 323, 418 (1974) (The First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood in
order to protect speech that matters.). A statute that regulates speech critical of public officials
and which implicitly requires the critic to guarantee the truth of every factual assert made about
public officials and prosecutors for fear of potential criminal liability can result in self-
censorship and discourage public debate because the truth or falsity of some claims cannot be
easily determined and may chill the First Amendment rights of some by causing some potential
complainants to be persuaded not to file a complaint for fear of prosecution under the statute.
New Hampshire v. Allard, 813 A.2d 506, 510 (N.H. 2002). This concern is particularly acute in
the context of allegations of police and government misconductsuch allegations will often pit
E-FILED 2014 OCT 03 9:29 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
[10]

the word of a civilian eyewitness against the testimony of several police officers [or other
government officials]. Id.
Moreover, and even more troubling, these cases create a situation wherein the accused
persons are members of the body responsible for investigating the complaint and filing charges.
Id. Needless to say, debate on public issues and criticism of police officers and prosecutors, just
as with other public officials, is speech at the very center of the constitutionally protected area
of free discussion. Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 85 (1966). Official reprisal for protected
speech offends the Constitution [because] it threatens to inhibit the exercise of a lawful right,
Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 588, n 10 (1998), and the law is well settled that as a
general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual
to retaliatory actions, including criminal prosecutions, for speaking out. Perry v. Sindermann,
408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972).
To put it more succinctly, to punish Meade because he did what the law plainly allows
him to docomplain of potential prosecutorial misconduct and questionable witness
testimonyis a due process violation of the most basic sort. U.S. v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 372
(1982); see also Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363 (1978) A claim of prosecutorial
vindictiveness addresses itself to a constitutional defect in the institution of the prosecution and
is a question of law to be determined by the Court and not a question of fact to be presented to a
jury. Butler, 601 A.2d at 270.
A prosecutorial vindictiveness claim is unrelated to the determination of guilt or
innocence. Id. Claims of prosecutorial vindictiveness address themselves to the concern that the
retaliation against the exercise of a constitutional right should prevent the institution or
prosecution of criminal charges against the defendant. Id. at 271, citing with approval U.S. v.
E-FILED 2014 OCT 03 9:29 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
[11]

Krezdorn, 718 F.2d 1360 (5
th
Cir. 1983), cert denied, Krezdorn v. U.S. 465 U.S. 1066 (1984).
Retaliatory prosecution cases often include a situation in which the chain of causation is complex
and where a non-prosecuting official influenced the prosecutorial decision but did not himself
make it. Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 262 (2006). It is often the non-prosecuting official
who acted in retaliation and who induces the prosecutor to bring charges that would not have
been initiated without his urging. Id.
If Meades facts which demonstrate the probability that an adverse action by the
prosecution or the court has been motivated by vindictiveness in retaliation for the successful
exercise of the defendants legal rights rather than for some other legitimate cause, then a
presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness arises which the Commonwealth must rebut with
evidence of legitimate explanation for the challenged conduct. Commonwealth v. Rocco, 544
A.2d 496, 499 (Pa. Super. 1988) (emphasis in original).
Respectfully Submitted,
THE LAW OFFICES OF GLEN S. DOWNEY, LLC
/s Glen S. Downey__________________
By: Glen S. Downey AT0012428
301 East Walnut Street, Suite 4
Des Moines, IA 50309
Tel: 412-865-7110
glen@downey-law.net
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT MEADE
Original filed.
Copy to:
Sac County Attorney



PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true
copy of the foregoing instrument was served upon
each of the attorneys of record, or the parties
if unrepresented, at their respective addresses
disclosed on the pleadings.

By: _____ U.S. Mail _____ Fax
_____ Courthouse Mail _____ Hand delivered
_____Certified Mail _____ Other

Signature:_______________________________________

Date:____________________________________________

E-FILED 2014 OCT 03 9:29 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
2RCR22
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR SAC COUNTY

STATE OF IOWA,
PLAINTIFF,
VS.
DARREN MITCHELL MEADE ,
DEFENDANT.

Case No. 02811 FECR012634

ORDER SETTING HEARING

The Defendant has filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars and a Motion to Dismiss.
IT IS, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE COURT as follows:
1. A Hearing is scheduled on 10/20/2014 at 11:00 AM at the Sac Co. Courthouse,
100 NW State St., Sac City, Iowa. .

CLERK TO FURNISH COPIES TO:
SAC COUNTY ATTORNEY
GLEN DOWNEY

If you need assistance to participate in court due to a disability, call the disability
coordinator at (641) 421-0990. Persons who are hearing or speech impaired may call
Relay Iowa TTY (1-800-735-2942). Disability coordinators cannot provide legal
advice.
1 of 2
E-FILED 2014 OCT 06 9:20 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT
State of Iowa Courts
Case Number Case Title
FECR012634 STATE VS DARREN MITCHELL MEADE
Type: ORDER SETTING HEARING
So Ordered
Electronically signed on 2014-10-06 09:20:41
2 of 2
E-FILED 2014 OCT 06 9:20 AM SAC - CLERK OF DISTRICT COURT